Nonsense and Rifkind

I've recently observed a ton of nonsense obviously written by non-Kensington (forin) people blinded by anger, hurt and injustice. When you have been hurt and have no recourse to justice, it does make for wars of sorts. Perhaps that's been the intention of these type of psychopaths - look at the history of the Arms trade (and its intent) and who sells the hardware to whom, and you can then see (obviously) who is ethical and who isn't - but having said THAT - NHS, welfare and Defence is way big with my family  and friends. Britain always had her strength in a strong Navy. My ABSOLUTELY incredible father wasn't just RAF and CRAF, he was also RN and CRN (twice)  - was a commander (Figure it out) Dad sold aircraft and gold but learned when he got burned.

I am not as good at arithmetic as Malcolm is but my sums say we can up defence x 4 with no problems (having listened to the experts in military spending) - keeping us happily independent and industrious for many many years. So what's the problem? Who does Malcolm want running the show? Israel. Not Scotland (they booted him out of office in Edinburgh - pardon the turn there, written in haste) But he likes it. He goes home at weekends. He likes to keep his very tight knit mittens in all types of haggis.

 The thinking conservative is always pushing for more transparency and accountability vis a vis tax. So this begs the question; why is Malcolm wasting 90,000 odd on 'office space'? (Double take that one)  When the space belongs to Tory HQ?.  Does Malc own the Conservatives? The conservatives had their 'law office' professional contracted to them. Leaving RBKC entirely corrupted in favour of the conservative party. Corruption, no less.  That FACT is on record (was removed from RBKC site)  Looks like Tories have some questions to answer to some policey and military folks. And the merit? He's a very good accountant, not quite on  a par with Mail group of newspapers, but almost. Woof.

I'm not a warmonger, quite the reverse, my belief is that a powerful military force strengthens trade and tourism as well as providing strong identity whilst promoting self discipline and respect. Something all are commanding these days - when there is actually, little evidence that the word is understood.

War about to kick off, what would Bond do?

007 would have something to say 

Ken Livingstone knows what's what and who is whom, sure as there is a nose on yer face! And HM Queen Elizabeth did not respond to this

Mother 4 Justice - Elizabeth Robillard blogs and shares truth and information

http://www.mama2.org/AO Ken Livingstone Fwd: FUAO Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Adriana C Ref: 05/A/01426/NP)‏

FAO Ken Livingstone Fwd: FUAO Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Adriana C Ref: 05/A/01426/NP)
Elizabeth Robillard   20/10/2005   Keep this message at the top of your inbox
To: mayor@london.gov.uk
Cc: chelsea.[]@hotmail.co.uk


Dear Mr.Livingstone,

I'm writing because my mother was a big supporter of yours. Please see below
(letter to Sir Rifkind) and my story (an open letter to the HRH The Queen)
here http://www.mama2.org [taken down]

I would also like to ask you to please investigate the incestuous nature of
RBKC. All charities bar one are subsidised- but always threatened with
funding withdrawal if a client of subsidise charity
should take the authority to court. This is a means of defeating the most
vulnerable.

Thank you for your time,

Yours faithfully,

Liz Lucy Robillard

HRH Queen Elizabeth
via email
26th November 2007 (copied to BBC)
Dear Madam,

Please pardon my temerity at writing and for this intrusion.

I'm writing as your servant and distant- relative (De Lucy, Robillard, Champagne) and as the daughter of J.G.L Robillard whom was decorated (by your father) for his efforts as a pilot with the CRAF and RAF during WW11.

Please review family court lawyers and judges acting 'in your name' - they are accountable to nobody (no governing body) and acting, in some instances, as power-crazed (sorry for the strong language) but they ought be judging their findings on evidence when at the moment they depend heavily on the words of social workers (children's services as of April 2007 also have no governing body) whilst all parties whom truly benefit (bar parents involved) are legal departments, all of whom make huge profit often with the hapless parent unaware of why children are taken from them etc .

 In an effort to understand this,  I took six months of university reading social sciences and dropped out due to is heavy bias toward communism and my refusing to put my name to work I was ordered to plageurise (communist bias)

 Also the training of social workers is often popular psychology (most is hypothesis very far from any fact) yet learned men and women willingly accept the view of these people, employed in your name, over that of your citizens and friends that actually know the families involved, wishing for fairness and openess in your public family courts, for their friends (eg friends - up to 20 in some cases, go to court as witnesses for the parent, but the power of authority to rule, outweighs that of any justice)

It would be refreshing to see such judges not depending on their perception of psychology e.g. a scoundrel knows to 'show remorse' (crocodile tears) will often release him from charges. This is common knowledge and I believe the judiciary are aware of this only recently.

 Sadly I have personal tragic experience of these public family courts and despite informing my MP (Sir Rifkind) very little appears to be done to stop the local authorities simply being able to march into any ones home and 'kidnap' children for the sake of filling the needs of job placements, such as permanent adoption and fostering officers and departments.

As a disabled mother and previously an actress, I am sad to find myself an unfortunate campaigner for public family law reform.
This job, separating families, surely ought to be one of a community, including free legal support for a parent in such a plight, as well as impartial support for the child? Too much communist influence is determining the lives of the British people as far as I can see.

The Children Act ultimately says 'the paramount interest of the child' but surely the abuse of that statement- leaving judges to disregard fact eg hundreds of hard fact evidence due to  a social worker or two urging it, is contrary to the paramount interest of the child?

Thank you for your kind observation and consideration

As always

your servant

Elizabeth C Lucye Robillard
-

Family Afternoon

Family Afternoon